Blog Archives

There are some television shows that are as good — and in some ways better — the second time around.

For example, I just finished watching all three Seasons of PERSON OF INTEREST with my 13 year old son. I’d already seen them, but was happy to watch them again. The second time around so many little things came clear, reminding me that the creators and writers of that series are damn brilliant. Whether they had it all planned or not, I have no idea. Any details that I might pull out for later in the series, I don’t realize at the time. I see them later.

For example, I had no idea that Senator Jonathan Paxton would come back after LOVE ME TO DEATH. But when I was writing SILENCED, I realized that there was a lot more to explore with this character. He ended up being a character in SILENCED and STOLEN. Many of my books are like that. In DEAD HEAT something happened near the end that one reviewer caught … but I don’t think most people did. I didn’t realize it until I read the final page proofs, but then I became excited because it sets up the next two books perfectly 🙂 In the Max Revere series, one almost flip comment in book one leads to a pivotal turning point in book two. I think sometimes, my subconscious knows things I don’t realize until I have to know it … weird, I know.

It’s Toni’s day today, but she’s helping her brother Mike get settled. He’s been released from the hospital (yeah!) and she’s been working double time to make sure he has everything he needs to recover. I know she has a lot to share, so come back in two weeks for an update. AND continue sending Mike and Toni your prayers and positive thoughts.

In the meantime …

For those of you who have been following Murder She Writes for a few years, you know that I love television. I love television more than going to the movies. Sure, there are some stories you just HAVE to see on the big screen (AVENGERS anyone?) but television is my first love.

Television didn’t always used to be so great. Acting was mediocre, story lines blah, and pacing was off. Just watch anything from the 70s and you’ll see what I mean. (As an aside, I don’t watch most sitcoms, reality shows, or soap operas. I used to watch soap operas, but that ended once I had kids and no time. Once a decade there’s a sitcom I like — SEINFELD, for one; NEW GIRL for a recent example.)

But I think that the rise of cable television — cable television that actually invests in its shows — has proven that television is a terrific medium for smart storytelling.

Rather than lament the shows I loved that network television killed on me (LIFE, DETROIT 187, PRIME SUSPECT) I thought I’d review what I’m watching now and my gut reaction.

GRIMM

Hands down, my favorite show this season. I loved the first season, and this is even better. Fun, dark, original. I can’t believe the show was on the cusp after six episodes last year … thank God the powers that be (NBC) realized they had a great commodity and infused it with life. Acting is strong, love Nick & Monroe and their odd friendship and trust. The secondary characters are better developed, and Hank no longer annoys me like he did last season. Rosalie (Bree Turner) was a great addition halfway through season one, so glad she’s returned! Out of all the shows I watch (which are way, way too many …), this is the one I anticipate each week. I watched season one again while waiting for season two to begin.

CASTLE

I wasn’t impressed with season one, but it grew on me. Loved season two. Season three? It was okay, but the whole who killed Beckett’s mother storyline grew tiresome. It lost it’s fun. The new season? WOW. Season four is a winning season, and I love it. It’s fun, it’s light, it makes fun of itself while also taking the cases seriously, and I feel that Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic have grown together as actors. Fillion has always carried the show, IMO, but now I feel they are more equals and she’s not so “hard” without losing her strong female independence which I like. I love how they get writers (hmm, writers writing about a writer — I love inside jokes, and I can’t wait until Castle’s next poker game. I think Sandra Brown, Lisa Gardner and J.D. Robb should be at the table … though I certainly wouldn’t say no if I were invited … hahaha.) As a writer, I love it, Lee Lofland’s blog of police errors notwithstanding. (I mean COME ONE! I write romantic thrillers, what wouldn’t I love about a perpetual ride-along with a hot copy … of course, my hot cop would look more like Jeremy Renner than Stana Katic …) I like how they’ve fleshed out Ryan and Esposito so they’re not just, “Yes, Beckett” lackeys. Still secondary, but not as knee-jerk. And the last episode, Murder He Wrote, was fantastic. Lee didn’t think so, but hey, I liked it!

SUPERNATURAL

My daughters and I started watching SUPERNATURAL together eight years ago, and we’ve been hooked ever since. The first five seasons were fantastic. Seasons 6 and 7, not so much. But we’re so invested in the show that we can’t stop watching. Season 8 has started out much stronger than the last two, so I’m cautiously optimistic. The acting has always been strong and I love the chemistry between Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles. Sam — lose the sideburns and get a haircut. Long hair is great, just not THAT long.

AMERICAN HORROR STORY

My 16 year old daughter and I watched it last season and were hooked. Loved the originality, the premise, the acting, the story, the writing … all brilliant. Not for the faint of heart … but rather than being gory or bloody, it’s intensely (and I mean INTENSE!!) psychologically suspenseful. It’s a smart show. Season two, which is a completely different setting and story arc than season one, is called AHS: ASYLUM and again, they have top actors and a riveting premise. I’m a little hesitant only in that there are a lot of religious overtones and it seems to be heavily anti-religion and anti-Catholic specifically (evil nuns and priest, possibly) but because the creator Steven Sondheim sold me with the first season, I’m willing to give it a try. (No spoilers! Kelly and I can’t watch it until this weekend. It’s on my DVR …)

HAVEN

I really enjoyed the first two seasons of this show, and I have season three recorded … but I haven’t been compelled to watch it yet. I don’t know why. Haven’t been in the mood yet … will probably have a marathon when I get my Lucy & Sean short story done!

ARROW

I had mixed feelings about ARROW after watching the previews, but based largely on the recommendation of people on my Facebook page, and specifically Anna Stewart from my local chapter, I decided to watch it. I will continue to watch it primarily because of the last ten minutes of the show, which made up for a heavy-handed, “The audience is stupid so we’ll over-explain everything” first thirty minutes. I also thought all the characters were stereotypes. All rich people are bad, the legal aid lawyers are all good and only want to help people, the rich best friend who is sleeping with Oliver’s former girlfriend, yada yada. But what I didn’t see coming was what happened on the lifeboat with Oliver’s father. Wow. Talk about intense motivation for Oliver. THAT sold me. I don’t know the story of ARROW (DC Comics) so maybe this isn’t new to anyone but me. I think this could be a really good show, so I’ll continue to watch.

BONES

Much better than season six and seven (hmm, do I sense a trend here? See SUPERNATURAL above.) What’s with David Boreanaz’s hair? First episode, totally noticed the dye job or whatever. Much better by the fourth episode. THEN I find out that there are no new shows until December 8th! What’s with that? Seriously, I can see them taking a week or two off because of the baseball playoffs, but two months? The only thing that saves the show for me is that they seem to have gotten back to the core story lines. Didn’t like the tiger episode because it got way too preachy for me. I hate when a perfectly good show decides to be a make a “statement.” I want to be entertained, if you want to make a statement be subtle. Though I loved the subplot of Bones running for President … that was well done.

NCIS

Just as strong as ever. While there are a few “dud” episodes over the ten seasons, there has never (for me) been a “dud” season. The only thing that scratches at the back of my head is that I get the sense that Mark Harmon is getting tired of the part. Just a little less … Anyway, I watched the first nine seasons one after the other earlier this spring. I was so addicted … I watched the entire season three while I was sick over President’s Day Weekend! LOL. Characters are strong, smart, well-developed. I love all the regulars. Even McGee has grown on me. Ziva is smart, tough, believable with vulnerabilities that fit her character–one of the best female characters on television today (IMO.) The ONLY hint of trouble on the horizon is a few more sly political comments. I hate that. Fortunately, they haven’t gotten too preachy and they’re still pro-military.

NCIS: Los Angeles

This is one of those shows that I know is bad, but I can’t help but watch. Okay, maybe it’s not BAD, but the pacing is just off in the dialogue. It got better by season three, and some of the storylines are compelling, but it’s just not *quite* right. Still, I’m compelled to watch, so it’s not all bad. And I like Deeks. 🙂

COVERT AFFAIRS

My guilty pleasure. I can’t help myself.

LAW & ORDER: SVU

I have it recorded, but haven’t seen any of the new episodes. I was very happy with the last season in how they handled Stabler’s departure. I really loved his character, but I really love Amaro, too — and having fresh faces is a good thing, I think, for a show that is now in 14 seasons. I’ve always felt the writing was sharp, and can overlook any problems. (Shh–don’t tell Allison Leotta that!) I don’t know why I haven’t wanted to watch the new season yet … I think partly because of my writing schedule. Which makes me wonder exactly what ARE my favorite shows? It seems, to me, that even though I enjoy SVU, it’s further down on the list. I will NOT miss GRIMM. SVU? Hmm … maybe I’ve just been watching too many crime shows.

NEW GIRL

The sole sitcom I watch. I crack up every episode. Love it. Sometimes, you just need to laugh …

GLEE

Again, recorded, haven’t watched it, but that’s because it’s one of the shows I watch with my two older daughters, and their schedules are hectic. But since Katie is coming home for the weekend from college, maybe we’ll have a marathon …

WALKING DEAD

I shouldn’t include this show because I’m only in the middle of Season Two. Kelly and I watched Season One and really liked it–it was dark, suspenseful, different … and we both liked Rick and Gary. Then we watched the first episode of season two and didn’t like it. So put it aside. But it’s still recorded, and now that all of Kelly’s friends are watching it, she wants to catch up. Unfortunately, this show gives me nightmares. I shit you not. I rarely get scared from shows. American Horror Story is far more suspenseful and psychologically terrifying when I’m watching it, but I never had a nightmare about it. Walking Dead? Wow — the other night, after watching an episode, I woke up at 2 in the morning and couldn’t get back to sleep. I think it’s the sound the zombies make … nonetheless, I’ll suffer for my 16 year old.

WOW! That’s a lot of shows. I’m not even going to count them up. And this doesn’t even include shows that start in the Winter or Summer … like JUSTIFIED and LONGMIRE and WAREHOUSE 13 … or the BBC shows I’m anticipating, LUTHER and SHERLOCK.

No wonder I’m sleep-deprived …

What show do you love the most (I know, it’s hard to choose … for me it’s GRIMM with NCIS a close second, but GRIMM is new and fresh, what can I say?) But I’m going to make you choose. OR tell me what show you’re anticipating. Or just gossip about David Boreanaz’s hair or Jared Padalecki’s sideburns or Stephen Amell’s abs. AND I’m giving away a copy of my soon-to-be-released book STALKED. Yep! Comment and share anything about television today and you’ll be entered in the drawing for STALKED, the winner to be announced this weekend.

I’m preparing for my RWA workshop: Thrills & Chills. Writing Romantic Suspense and Thrillers. Normally, I don’t do a lot of preparation for workshops because I only give a few of them, and I’ve given them multiple times so I can practically do it in my sleep. However, T&C is new. I presented it at the Arizona Dreams RWA conference and realized I had far too much information to share in a one hour time slot. So I’m focusing on the one thing that truly separates suspense from all other genres: stakes.

There are three things that work in tandem to create a good thriller: character, pacing and stakes. As our own Toni McGee Causey has often said, “Story = Character + Conflict.” I need to touch upon character (and some character pitfalls to avoid), and definitely need to discuss pacing (essential to a thriller, so I will spend a bit more time on this), but because I’m limited to a one hour workshop, I want to focus on stakes.

Stakes are different in suspense novels because there is someone at risk. It may be as localized as a psychological thriller where there’s only one person truly in jeopardy (usually the hero or someone she cares about), or a broad thriller where innocent people are at risk. Since crime thrillers are the easiest to analyze and extrapolate into other types of thrillers, and because I write them, I’ll be dissecting the stakes of key movies and television shows.

Right now, I’m analyzing season one of NCIS — it’s one of the best paced television shows out there. I’m identifying the core story, the midpoint, and what’s at stake. Stakes here vary in every episode, from “small” (i.e. preventing someone from getting away with murder–there’s no threat to anyone else) to “huge” (i.e. stopping a terrorist attack.) Because this is all done in 44 minutes, the pacing needs to be perfect, and the stakes need to be clear.

For example, in “YANKEE WHITE,” Season One, Episode One, the viewer knows nothing about the characters or even much about the show. The set-up: we’re on Air Force One and the Naval Officer assigned to the President dies after having lunch with the President. Immediate high stakes: is the POTUS in danger? At the midpoint, after a lot of investigation and work (and planting of clues that are important at the climax), a critical thing happens: NCIS manipulates the FBI and Secret Service and gets the body and the physical evidence. This raises the stakes because IF they don’t solve the case (which many people think is natural), the President could die. Without this key evidence, they wouldn’t have been able to solve the case. The midpoint in ALL shows and books is a critical juncture that clearly identifies the stakes and problems. The midpoint usually gives the hero a different direction to pursue (hope) or reveals that he was wrong all along (despair.) The midpoint often reveals key character: for example, in the above, Gibbs asks Kate (then a secret service agent assigned to the president) if she’ll stall when Air Force One lands so he and his team can take possession of the body. She says no, she won’t defy a direct order. She says she’s sorry, and Gibbs says, “Never say you’re sorry.” This is such a key character trait and important for the series, as well as what Gibbs was actually doing.

In movies and novels, there is a bit more room to move around and create escalating stakes. In writing STOLEN, I have three layers of stakes, and it’s only the first that my hero knows about. When one is solved, a new threat is revealed. I also realized last night while I was writing that there was a ticking clock — another great pacing trick for thrillers.

I’m also using LAW & ORDER: SVU, GRIMM, CASTLE, JUSTIFIED, SHERLOCK, LUTHER, SUPERNATURAL and BONES. Yes, far too much for a one-hour workshop which is why I’m putting all this in a handout. I rarely do handouts, but I felt after the Arizona conference, that a lot of what I wanted to share could be read by attendees after the workshop, and therefore I spent too much time on examples and not enough time on solving story problems.

For movies, I need to focus on what people have most likely seen that best illustrate what I’m trying to show. THE MATRIX is a great example, and one of my favorite hero’s journey movies. THE AVENGERS, FINDING NEMO, THE DEPARTED, STAR WARS, DIE HARD, NORTH BY NORTHWEST and THE MALTESE FALCON. (FINDING NEMO is a thriller in many ways–a father looking for his missing son. Good thriller material!)

NORTH BY NORTHWEST and DIE HARD are two good examples of how to incorporate a romance into a fast-paced thriller. And CASTLE and BONES are clearly romantic suspense more than straight thriller, so those need to be analyzed as well. (Just don’t get me started on how they screwed up the relationship in BONES! Argh!)

To effectively do this, I need to re-watch all these movies … what a hardship!

What movies do you think are great examples of escalating stakes and all-is-lost moments? Or, what movie are you most looking forward to seeing? (I already saw THE AVENGERS twice — FABULOUS movie. And I’m looking forward to the 2013 Prequel to MONSTERS, INC!)

I’m preparing for my RWA workshop: Thrills & Chills. Writing Romantic Suspense and Thrillers. Normally, I don’t do a lot of preparation for workshops because I only give a few of them, and I’ve given them multiple times so I can practically do it in my sleep. However, T&C is new. I presented it at the Arizona Dreams RWA conference and realized I had far too much information to share in a one hour time slot. So I’m focusing on the one thing that truly separates suspense from all other genres: stakes.

There are three things that work in tandem to create a good thriller: character, pacing and stakes. As our own Toni McGee Causey has often said, “Story = Character + Conflict.” I need to touch upon character (and some character pitfalls to avoid), and definitely need to discuss pacing (essential to a thriller, so I will spend a bit more time on this), but because I’m limited to a one hour workshop, I want to focus on stakes.

Stakes are different in suspense novels because there is someone at risk. It may be as localized as a psychological thriller where there’s only one person truly in jeopardy (usually the hero or someone she cares about), or a broad thriller where innocent people are at risk. Since crime thrillers are the easiest to analyze and extrapolate into other types of thrillers, and because I write them, I’ll be dissecting the stakes of key movies and television shows.

Right now, I’m analyzing season one of NCIS — it’s one of the best paced television shows out there. I’m identifying the core story, the midpoint, and what’s at stake. Stakes here vary in every episode, from “small” (i.e. preventing someone from getting away with murder–there’s no threat to anyone else) to “huge” (i.e. stopping a terrorist attack.) Because this is all done in 44 minutes, the pacing needs to be perfect, and the stakes need to be clear.

For example, in “YANKEE WHITE,” Season One, Episode One, the viewer knows nothing about the characters or even much about the show. The set-up: we’re on Air Force One and the Naval Officer assigned to the President dies after having lunch with the President. Immediate high stakes: is the POTUS in danger? At the midpoint, after a lot of investigation and work (and planting of clues that are important at the climax), a critical thing happens: NCIS manipulates the FBI and Secret Service and gets the body and the physical evidence. This raises the stakes because IF they don’t solve the case (which many people think is natural), the President could die. Without this key evidence, they wouldn’t have been able to solve the case. The midpoint in ALL shows and books is a critical juncture that clearly identifies the stakes and problems. The midpoint usually gives the hero a different direction to pursue (hope) or reveals that he was wrong all along (despair.) The midpoint often reveals key character: for example, in the above, Gibbs asks Kate (then a secret service agent assigned to the president) if she’ll stall when Air Force One lands so he and his team can take possession of the body. She says no, she won’t defy a direct order. She says she’s sorry, and Gibbs says, “Never say you’re sorry.” This is such a key character trait and important for the series, as well as what Gibbs was actually doing.

In movies and novels, there is a bit more room to move around and create escalating stakes. In writing STOLEN, I have three layers of stakes, and it’s only the first that my hero knows about. When one is solved, a new threat is revealed. I also realized last night while I was writing that there was a ticking clock — another great pacing trick for thrillers.

I’m also using LAW & ORDER: SVU, GRIMM, CASTLE, JUSTIFIED, SHERLOCK, LUTHER, SUPERNATURAL and BONES. Yes, far too much for a one-hour workshop which is why I’m putting all this in a handout. I rarely do handouts, but I felt after the Arizona conference, that a lot of what I wanted to share could be read by attendees after the workshop, and therefore I spent too much time on examples and not enough time on solving story problems.

For movies, I need to focus on what people have most likely seen that best illustrate what I’m trying to show. THE MATRIX is a great example, and one of my favorite hero’s journey movies. THE AVENGERS, FINDING NEMO, THE DEPARTED, STAR WARS, DIE HARD, NORTH BY NORTHWEST and THE MALTESE FALCON. (FINDING NEMO is a thriller in many ways–a father looking for his missing son. Good thriller material!)

NORTH BY NORTHWEST and DIE HARD are two good examples of how to incorporate a romance into a fast-paced thriller. And CASTLE and BONES are clearly romantic suspense more than straight thriller, so those need to be analyzed as well. (Just don’t get me started on how they screwed up the relationship in BONES! Argh!)

To effectively do this, I need to re-watch all these movies … what a hardship!

What movies do you think are great examples of escalating stakes and all-is-lost moments? Or, what movie are you most looking forward to seeing? (I already saw THE AVENGERS twice — FABULOUS movie. And I’m looking forward to the 2013 Prequel to MONSTERS, INC!)

We talk a lot about heroes, heroines, and villains. But there’s a character that in many ways and in many stories is just as important as the protagonist and antagonist–and that’s the sidekick. The pal. The mentor. A secondary character who is important to either the protagonist or the story itself–or better yet? Both.

I was thinking about this today when I posted something over at the Romantic Times message board about my character Dr. Hans Vigo. Hans was a throwaway character in my first trilogy, someone my FBI agents could call up for information. No one I had plans to develop, but after talking to him on the phone (through my characters!) I had a picture of him. Late 40s, a bit on the short side, a tad overweight–but still fit. A mentor. A good guy. The go-to guy. My know-it-all-if-I-need-anything-from-Quantico FBI dude. 🙂

But he sort of stuck around.

In FEAR NO EVIL I brought him back, a profiler–but also because he was on the East Coast and I needed someone to interview a potential suspect/witness in New York–someone Quinn Peterson trusted. Hans. No brainer. I met him. Big mistake. I liked him.

So when I was writing KILLING FEAR, I brought him in on the page. It seemed . . . right at the time. And, to be honest, I planned on killing him in the Prison Break Trilogy. I remember writing my agent that he was going to have to die. But dammit, my villain didn’t kill him, and picked another secondary character I also liked. Hans survived. And again, in TEMPTING EVIL, I thought he would die. He didn’t. He grew on me. Surely he would be dead by the end of PLAYING DEAD. But . . . how could I kill a guy who’s been through so many of my books? More than half of them?

In SUDDEN DEATH, Hans takes on a major secondary role. He’s no longer simply a Herald or even a simple mentor–he’s complex, he’s my heroine’s Mentor and my hero’s Threshold Guardian. He’s pivotal to the story and yet also a shapeshifter as his motivations change over the course of the story. And finally–finally!–I learn why he’s not only an FBI agent, but so dedicated and driven and amicable. And the most fun I think I had was role-reversal–in the No Evil series, Dillon Kincaid sought out Hans’s advice; in SUDDEN DEATH, Hans is the one calling Dillon for input. I’ll admit, I loved bringing them both back.

Secondary characters are crucial to the story. I can go on and on about archetypes like the mentor and the shapeshifter and the trickster, but the secondary characters that really stick with me are those loyal to the hero or heroine . . . even when battling their own personal demons.

Some of my favorite secondary characters:

Obi Wan Kenobi . . . need I say more? He is the epitome of a mentor to young Luke, sharing with him what he needs to know, but no more. Why? Because he knows that too much information will send Luke down the wrong path. He’s wise, but he’s still struggling with past failures. (The single best character in the later Star Wars films–the prequels–was Obi Wan. They are worth watching primarily for his character growth and development, and is IMO the best consistency with the original.)

Dr. Henry Jones (Sean Connery) in THE LAST CRUSADE. It’s always a tough call whether I like #3 or #1 in the Indiana Jones movies better. #1 had better villains and love interest; but #3 had a terrific story (the holy grail) stronger character development of Indy. I also love his relationship with his father. Ok, I love Sean Connery. But as a catalyst for Indy’s growth, I found his character a perfect major secondary character.

Mark Wahlberg in THE DEPARTED. Okay, I love, love, love this movie. Wahlberg played the borderline psycho cop perfectly. His potential (and ultimately his final act) was foreshadowed brilliantly, and frankly, I don’t know if just any actor could have pulled this off. I didn’t like him. But I completely understood him and his choices and decisions were so perfectly in character I felt that full circle click that I don’t get in many films anymore. (To digress . . . I think THE DEPARTED was the best cast film of the early 21st century.)

Capt. Renault in CASABLANCA. Not wholly likable, but you can’t hate him. You understand him, even if you wouldn’t do what he does. But at the end, he lives up to his character. He was subtle throughout the movie–he never took center stage–but every scene he was in was a perfect foreshadow for the ending.

Joan Cusack in WORKING GIRL. As Cyn, she was the typical “buddy.” A best friend who was quirky but gave sound advice (often with comedic overtones.) She was the comic relief. “Sometimes I dance around the house in my underwear. That doesn’t make me Madonna. Never will.” She’s also the threshold guardian to Tess McGill, but not because she doesn’t want her to succeed–Cyn loves her best friend and everything she says and does is because she cares about her feelings and her future. She was a bit over-the-top, but in a secondary character you can get away with doing and saying things you can’t do or say with your protagonist.

–Tangent. In FATAL SECRETS I have a secondary character, Charlie Cammarata, who is not a nice guy. He was fired from Immigration, he did some awful things to the heroine–but his motivations were not bad. They were misguided and he was wrong and he doesn’t know it, but ultimately, by the end you (I hope!) understand him. However, he can say things that the heroine thinks and believes but because she lives within the law, she will never act on them. It’s one of those deep moral questions: if you could kill someone evil and get away with it, would you? Charlie would not hesitate to say yes; my heroine would waver, but ultimately, say no. But using secondary characters to highlight major moral dilemmas is a common use, and when done well, does make you think. How far would you go?

I could go on and on . . . in television, there are more clear-cut examples. Walt (the buddy) in VERONICA MARS; Det. Tutola (ICE-T) in LAW & ORDER SVU–he usually says what I’m thinking; Norm & Cliff in CHEERS. These characters take the show to the next level; without them, you don’t have the depth (or humor.) In fiction, JD Robb has, hands down, the best secondary characters in any series I’ve read. Delia and McNab anyone? Sommerset? Mavis? Without them, it would just be another police procedural; with them, the books are golden.

The most important thing about secondary characters is that they need to be pushing the protagonist to reach for the brass ring (i.e. a cautionary protagonist may need a more aggressive, though sometimes reckless, partner); or be the mentor, the wise man or woman who the protagonist seeks . . . but at the pivotal time, they are unavailable (dead, kidnapped, gone home); or they are a catalyst. They make things happen while they themselves don’t change. But a positive secondary character will always have the protagonist’s best interests in mind. (SAM — LORD OF THE RINGS. He never lost sight of Frodo’s conflict or quest, he was loyal and steadfast. Without Sam, Frodo would not have survived. But it wasn’t Sam’s story.) They may not do the right thing, but they’ll always do it for the right reason.

So share some of your favorite secondary characters and why. What makes them good for the protagonist? Why are they strong characters?

Featured on murder she writes

Bio:

Allison Brennan

Allison Brennan is a New York Times and USA Today bestselling author of nearly three dozen romantic thrillers and mysteries, including the Lucy Kincaid series and the Max Revere series. She lives in Northern California with her husband, five children, and assorted pets.